EVENTS

Sometimes, people suck

This page does not advocate any violence, or the breaking of any laws. It is, rather, an exercise in Free Speech.

It also asks,

Is Miri Mogilevsky, who blogs at Brute Reason at Freethought blogs! a loyal American ?
Has she ever had sex with PZ Myers ?
Has she ever had sex with Rebecca Watson ?

Because, obviously, all of those are offenses that warrant execution. It’s revealing, though: this is a person who does not understand the concept of free speech at all (it is not an idea that encourages harassment or intimidation), and also has the usual anti-skepchick/ftb obsession.

Anyway, as Ophelia suggests, if you have a facebook account, go to the page, click on the the gear icon just beneath the cover photo at the top, and select “report page”. As a bonus, you’ll discover how pathetic Facebook’s reporting mechanism is!

It is an exercise in free speech comprehension failure, that’s for sure.

Facebook being a private web site, and not any public location where the government is obliged to not interfere.

And free speech being an inapplicable concept regardless to violent threats, a standard to which this Facebook page, if it does not constitute such, certainly tap dances right up to and bops on the nose….

Might I suggest a blanket ban on all other supposedly helpful suggestions on what should be done, besides reporting the obnoxious page to Facebook? (Mainly all of the suggestions are likely to be totally obvious and possibly already acted upon.)

What have you got against freeze peach? I mean, the page is only asking a question, and it specifically says that it doesn’t advocate violence. Wishing out loud that it’d be great if the person you hate was violently murdered is totally different from saying that it’d be great if someone murdered the person you hate. Clearly the poopyhead should be able to tell the difference, right?

But for reporting this page… I can’t find a proper category for it. I selected “Credible threat of violence”, but it’s probably not credible. Are these truly the only things Facebook thinks might make a page unacceptable?

But for reporting this page… I can’t find a proper category for it. I selected “Credible threat of violence”, but it’s probably not credible. Are these truly the only things Facebook thinks might make a page unacceptable?

I think they still don’t like breastfeeding mothers very much.

This Facebook page is clearly meant as harassment and thus should be taken down.

And here I am, a big defender of Nicholson Baker’s Checkpoint. But that was you know, art and stuff.

So, if someone makes a page passive-aggressively advocating the murder of a woman they disagree with, its free speech. But, if someone else makes a straightforward claim about what happened to them personally, its reprehensible libel. Right. Glad to see we are in a well-informed, logical and rational movement.

Disgusting.

Allow me to echo the sentiment that these rifts cannot be deep or wide enough for me.

So, let’s get this correct, free speech to the sexist horde is just pushing against people’s bondaries and tolerance and trying to abuse to the point but no further of what people are willing to accept and then constantly seeking to push further against that comfort level until a constant stream of abuse is normalized.

In other words, it is the exact MO of one particularly infamous sociopathic rapist/abusive ex my partner had.

And the sad thing is that is still less risky, less daring, less full of social consequence and genuine recrimination for using one’s free speech than simply speaking up for the oppressed and showing solidarity with them on what should be a no duh.

With every example, it only becomes more obvious that these assholes are moral cowards who want all the credit of being social activists without any of the risk, work, or unpleasantness of standing up against power. Which is almost exactly all the creationists who want all the credit and plaudits of science without doing all the work, research, and peer review of actual scientists.

Ugh, will we ever be free of lazy fuckers who see the one thing not automatically given to them as an accident of birth (the moral superiority of standing up for what’s right, even though it’s hard) as something that should also be in their privilege toy box rotting in a corner of their room?

At that point, I think I chose “It doesn’t belong on Facebook”, which then prompted me to select from several new categories (I picked the one about violence), and after that I had a drop down list to pick through as well.

Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the page you reported for containing credible threat of violence and found it doesn’t violate our community standard on credible threat of violence.
Note: If you have an issue with something on the page, be sure to report the content (ex: a photo), not the entire page. That way, your report will be more accurately reviewed.

Just remind me, when was the last time that anyone like PZ or Rebecca made a website or Facebook page or whatever which asked the question “Should Person X be murdered?”, as an exercise in “free speech” or not?

I got the “doesn’t violate community standards” response, too. There’s an option to give feedback on their response. I took the opportunity to ask how a page dedicated to the purposed of making veiled threats of violence and insults against a private individual does not constitute harassment. Facebook Community Standards regarding Bullying and Harassment:

Facebook does not tolerate bullying or harassment. We allow users to speak freely on matters and people of public interest, but take action on all reports of abusive behavior directed at private individuals.

We should not ever break the law. Rather, we should advocate , through lawful land constitutional processes, to have the law changed so that it is legal to kill Miri Mogilevsy.
Alternatively, we should, where legal, request that Miria Mogilevsky kill herself. Relevant laws should be changed so that suicide, and advocating suicide, is legal. Otherwise, you should not encourage or assist anyone in committing suicide, nor should you kill yourself.

The vileness is astonishing. And what’s even more sickening is that Facebook doesn’t care: photo’s of women breastfeeding? Removed. Any drawing that vaguely resembles a breast? Removed. Hate pages asking for the murder of a certain person? Freeze peach!

That page was so disgusting I’m hoping Miri ironically finds it less upsetting. I mean, it can’t possibly even have some sort of hurtful but halfway legitimate point lurking vaguely somewhere amidst all the hate. It’s just adolescent Troglodyte … drool.

To quote Facebook policy, you state you will take “action on all reports of abusive behavior directed at private individuals.”

For someone to set up a whole Facebook page around the question of whether it is OK to murder another individual is clearly a form of harassment. How can it not be??? The actual page author is also anonymous. Hiding behind a claim of “free speech” doesn’t not remove this implied threat.

The page in question should be removed because it is a threat of murder towards another person. In most countries threatening to kill is an offense which puts the person making the threat outside the bounds of “free speech”.

Facebook needs to take its responsibilities on abusive behavior seriously.

So, images of breast and breast feeding women are worse than passive aggressive hoggling about the murder of people one doesn’t agree with in the twisted moral worldview of Facebook? And yet the operators of that corporation still wonder why so many people despise them?

As for the poor excuse for a human being that vomited up this misogynist dreck, I would say that he (and lets be honest – it is all but certainly a ‘he’) needs to take a long, hard look at his life and his priorities, but that would be a waste of time. Such rank arseholes are a lost cause.

Hardly a day goes by without something to confirm my original impression that Facebook is evil. Very early on, I realized that FB’s business model amounts to “Tell us EVERYTHING about your life, so that we can aggregate this information for sale to any spammer or grifter who meets our price.” I understand that, even though I’ve never had an account, Facebook maintains a “shadow profile” on me, because I know people who fell for Facebook, and they have probably mentioned my name. It would be interesting to know how many of the people outraged by the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs are happily giving personal information to an advertising corporation. I wonder how many burglaries have been facilitated by people announcing to the world that they were leaving on vacation.

As expected, same ‘we see no problem’ BS from FB. But please everyone, keep reporting this page. If they get hundreds of reports about the same page, maybe someone on a slightly higher level in their organisation will take notice (because the apparently barely literate asswipes who handle the reports don’t seem to give a fuck).

Reported, got the ‘we see no problem’ response; sent feedback quoting their “take action on all reports of abusive behavior directed at private individuals” section, stating that this does target an individual and please enforce your own rules.
Then I reported the page again.

Dr. Dawkins’ infamous words are quite fitting here, don’t you think? Islamic fundamentalists threaten women with murder for speaking against the status quo! What does Miri have to complain about in the comfort of Western society? (aside from being targeted by her so-called “allies” of course.)

Personally I’m over it. I was amused during the election to post liberal stuff to annoy my redneck family in the South, but that’s past. Now, I’m not sure what’s it for. Fortunately I never got hooked on Twitter and rarely check that any more.

Aren’t “conspiracy to murder” and “threatening to kill” crimes in the U.S.? What about facilitating and protecting people who conspire to murder / threaten to kill? Surely there must be laws against that, free speech or no free speech?

Okay, I’m going to say something controversial in response to all of this, but here goes: This is why I believe in doxxing.

Scum like the admin of this hate page do what they do because they know they are protected by complete online anonymity. Take that away, and a very powerful tool to protect and enable stalkers, abusers, and potential murderers is gone. Facebook’s bullshit response to people reporting this page is an exemplar of rape culture and misogynist culture and crime culture and every other kind of societal approval of the most horrible human impulses out there.

I want to know who this person is. He is a threat. In fact I consider him a clear and present danger to the safety of his community at large. Am I overreacting? Maybe it was all his idea of a joke? (Come on, JOKE, people!) You know what? I don’t care. I give entirely zero fucks. There are lines of basic human decency that you cross, where erring on the side of caution involves treating bad people the way they have openly asked to be treated: like a danger to others and an enemy to a safe society.

So while I do not have the admin’s name, emails, or place of employment, if I did have those things, you’d better believe I would go public with them without a moment’s hesitation. There are some things I wouldn’t go public with (his home address or phone numbers), but I would certainly publicize his name, his photo, and personally contact his employer to warn them who they had lurking in their offices.

Now, maybe you can throw all kinds of “moral” arguments at me about how this is a horrible idea. Maybe it is, and maybe I should just keep ignoring things like that page when they pop up, convincing myself that it’s all just a gag and people need to lighten up. And in this way, I can do my part to perpetuate the culture of terror and violence that bad people use to silence and frighten good people.

Or maybe, all of us can decide, fuck it, and do something to shut down those who threaten and harass for a change.

Now, maybe you can throw all kinds of “moral” arguments at me about how this is a horrible idea.

You can take your scare quotes around moral and shove them until they shoot out of your mouth. Don’t do that. All it does is paint you as an unreasonable asshole who has no interest in a valid argument.

All I have to say about your idea is that I’m not crazy about a doxxing war, which is what would happen. Martin, I have been raped, multiple times. I’ve been assaulted for coming out of a gay bar. I’ve been stalked, offline, and online which went offline. It’s already fairly well known where I’m at, and that I live very rural. In my personal situation, I’m pretty vulnerable, so if you don’t mind, I’d rather not be a pawn in your strategy. And before you rush to your keyboard in rebuttal, that’s exactly what would happen to me and anyone else who spoke up. It’s damn nice some people have the privilege in life to not have to worry about such things, however, I am not privileged in that way, and nor are many others.

I think Facebook may allow images of breastfeeding women as long as there’s no areola showing. Too bad for women with larger areolas.

Not meaning to jack this tread into a pro-breastfeeding thread, just pointing out that an optimal in most cases choice of feeding babies is more offensive to Facebook than indirect death threats.

The enemy loves death and suffering. They love rape and unwanted pregnancies. They love the poor becoming poorer as our productivity increases. They love theft and poverty. They loved that we tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan. They loved TORTURE! It made them feel comfortable. They love that the bayside floodwall being built in my beloved Galveston will barely last 70 years and that an Ike level storm in 50 years will likely breach the 1905 seawall that just barely held in 2008. They delight in death and suffering. They oppose the ACA because more Americans can live healthier lives.

They hate women because most women are too smart for this shit. And some women buy into it just like Serena Joy must have.

WENDY DAVIS FOR GOVERNOR OF TEXAS. SEND HER MONEY IF YOU DON’T LIVE IN TEXAS.

Yep, the page is gone. My guess is there’s some algorithm or something that needs to hit a certain threshold before the complaints are taken seriously or looked at by human eyeballs. Pharyngulated.

@robro #61 – I’m with you. This is the first time I’ve been back on FB in months, and I don’t forsee going back again anytime soon. Same with Twitter – I just don’t get it. If you start an antisocial network, let me know and we can find other like-minded folks, send each other messages which we’ll all ignore, and arrange to never, ever get together in meatspace :))

Scum like the admin of this hate page do what they do because they know they are protected by complete online anonymity. Take that away, and a very powerful tool to protect and enable stalkers, abusers, and potential murderers is gone.

Unfortunately, as Caine, Fleur du mal points out @ 64, once you start attacking online anonymity in a bdi to make people more responsible for their comments then it is not only the creepers and dudebro misogynists who will be exposed; so will the victims of abuse. It would be all too easy for cyber-stalking to escalate to fleshspace stalking, and effectively offering the harrassers the ability to credibly back up online invective with the threat of direct personal harrassment or even violence could easily serve to make it easier for them to silence and marginalise their tragets, not harder.

Anonymity is not some essential oxygen to online harrassment in any case – many of the most vitriolic misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, racists and assorted other bigots out there are quite happy to post under their real names. They are proud of their bigotry, and accurately surmise that their immediate peer group will support them, and that society at large will most likely remain apathetic, if it doesn’t actively validate their harted.

Declaring open season on ‘doxxing’ would almost certainly harm more people than it helps, and could well result in forcing many vulnerable people off the internet entirely, which is exactly what the harrassers want.

Breastfeeding and political campaigning for Texas are off topic for this thread. If you feel the need to continue in either of these veins, please consider taking such discussion to Thunderdome. Thanks.

once you start attacking online anonymity in a bdi to make people more responsible for their comments then it is not only the creepers and dudebro misogynists who will be exposed; so will the victims of abuse.

The folks managing the site, like facebook, should dox those who deliberately violate the TOA to post threatening stuff, just like PZ does. You use our site to threaten, you will be exposed, period, end of story. Then it becomes a different argument, since a private site doesn’t have to abide by the freeze peach/privacy concerns in the constitution.

The folks managing the site, like facebook, should dox those who deliberately violate the TOA to post threatening stuff, just like PZ does. You use our site to threaten, you will be exposed, period, end of story.

I sort of agree. But, to Thunderfoot, what PZed is doing is threatening. When someone points out the idiocy of DJ Groethe, he could, depending on the his point of view, see that as a threat. What you or I see as a threat, others don’t, and vice versa. So while I sort of agree, I can see that being massively abused.

What you or I see as a threat, others don’t, and vice versa. So while I sort of agree, I can see that being massively abused.

Actually, it isn’t that hard. Threats of death/physical violence/rape make for very clear dividing lines for the site managers. Especially for folks who push the line. Not to many people are willing to sue if they must be able to show to a jury of their peers they are “just kidding”, when taken in the context of their written words.

I get that. I just see (cynical me) a policy like this being used to out not just those who make real threats, but those who expose idiocy which could cost some one a job, or create a possible reason for threats.

I fucking hate dealing with people who know what I think and assume that I just parrot what Watson and Myers says.

I wonder why they can’t imagine anyone doing anything but :-p

This is why I avoid talking with people like her. It is pointless.

I agree. not wanting to drag other drama into this, but the big problem is that they won’t fucking let you avoid them. Even if you’re just on the periphery these people will demand your attention one way or another. I honestly would much rather they were the type of people who could just “pray for us” and let us be instead of fucking obsess over it.

You hold me in low regard based on zero knowledge about me; only what fake freethoughters like Benson spew.

WTF. Mayhew shows up here often enough, so she has to know that Ophelia always quotes her fucking tweets. So it’s not like we’re just going by what Ophelia says she says. We can see what a deeply shitty person she is for ourselves. Especially when she puts in an appearance in the comments and makes an even bigger ass of herself!

I have tried to use Facebook’s reporting mechanism a few times and don’t think I’ve ever seen a reasonable response. A couple of months ago I reported someone for a blatant anti chinese racist attack on another commentator and got the stock “doesn’t violate community standards” message back that everyone here seems to be experiencing.

This whole thing has actually pushed me into leaving Facebook. I’ve disliked their values for a while now but stuck around as it’s a nice way to stay in touch with people, but now I’ve finally had enough.
Sadly, the ‘delete my account’ page no longer asks you why you are leaving.

Facebook being a private web site, and not any public location where the government is obliged to not interfere.

I am generally in favor of expanding the concept of protection of free speech to other monopolistic/oligopolistic entities, in proportion to their ability to restrict the free exchange of ideas. For example, if your internet provider bans you from saying [X], that limits your ability to say [X] extremely, to nearly the same degree that being banned by government to say [X] would. FB being a near-monopoly of social networking, it makes perfect sense to protect the exchange of ideas on FB to a large degree.

However:

a)”near-monopoly” is still not the absolute monopoly that government has (i.e. if you can’t say it on FB, you can stull say it on g+, or even on a non-social-networking site), and the punishment for saying something FB doesn’t approve of is being kicked off FB, which compared to gubmint-style punishments is peanuts; consequently, “in proportion to their ability to restrict the free exchange of ideas” means that protections of speech needn’t be nearly as strict as they are for public spaces, because FB’s ability to limit the exchange of ideas is smaller than that of a government.

The folks managing the site, like facebook, should dox those who deliberately violate the TOA to post threatening stuff, just like PZ does. You use our site to threaten, you will be exposed, period, end of story. Then it becomes a different argument, since a private site doesn’t have to abide by the freeze peach/privacy concerns in the constitution.

That does change the calculus as you say, and is infinitely preferable to a ‘tit-for-tat’ doxxing war between individuals. That said, I can still see the validity of Ogvorbis: Apologies Available for All! post @ 73. Could we trust an organisation like Facebook (given its, to put it mildly, less than stellar track record) to refrain from abusing such a principle? Who would get to define what constitutes a sufficient threat to warrent exposure? Threats to life and health, obviously, but what about less clear cut areas like notional threats to employment or professional reputation and job security? It seems very likely indeed that the attempt will at least be made to argue that these types pf threats warrent doxxing by those who don’t appreciate any criticism of their actions.